Histopathological response to chemotherapy and survival of mucinous type gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: Data on the clinicopathological characteristics of mucinous gastric cancer (muc-GC) are limited. This study compares the clinical outcome and response to chemotherapy between patients with resectable muc-GC, intestinal (int-GC) and diffuse (dif-GC) gastric cancer. METHODS: Patients from the D1/D2 study or the CRITICS trial were included in exploratory surgery-alone (SAtest) or chemotherapy test (CTtest) cohorts. Real-world data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry on patients treated between with surgery-alone (SAvalidation), and receiving preoperative chemotherapy with or without postoperative treatment (CTvalidation) were used for validation. Histopathological subtypes were extracted from pathology reports filed in the Dutch Pathology Registry and correlated with tumor regression grade (TRG) and relative survival (RS). RESULTS: In SAtest (n = 549) and SAvalidation (n = 8062) cohorts, muc-GC patients had a five-year RS of 39% and 31%, similar to or slightly better than dif-GC (43% and 29%, p = .52 and p = .011), but worse than int-GC (55% and 42%, p = .11 and p < .001). In CTtest (n = 651) and CTvalidation (n = 2889) cohorts, muc-GC showed favorable TRG (38% and 44% (near-)complete response) compared to int-GC (26% and 35%) and dif-GC (10% and 28%, p < .001 and p = .005). The 5-year RS in CTtest and CTvalidation cohorts for muc-GC (53% and 48%) and int-GC (58% and 59%) was significantly better compared to dif-GC (35% and 38%, p = .004 and p < .001). CONCLUSION: Recognizing and incorporating muc-GC into treatment decision-making of resectable GC can lead to more personalized and effective approaches, given its favorable response to preoperative chemotherapy in relation to int-GC and dif-GC and its favorable prognostic outcomes in relation to dif-GC.

Optimal Treatment Strategies for cT2 Staged Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagus and the Gastroesophageal Junction: A Multinational, High-volume Center Retrospective Cohort Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: A multi-national high-volume center study was undertaken to evaluate outcomes after primary surgery (PS) or neoadjuvant treatment followed by surgery (NAT/S) in cT2 staged adenocarcinomas of the esophagus (EAC) and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ). BACKGROUND: Optimal treatment approach with either NAT/S or PS for clinically staged cT2cNany or cT2N0 EAC and GEJ remains unknown due to the lack of randomized controlled trials. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of prospectively maintained databases from ten centers was performed. Between 01/2012-08/2023 645 patients who fulfilled inclusion criteria of GEJ Siewert type I, II or EAC with cT2 status at diagnosis underwent PS or NAT/S with curative intent. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: In the cT2cNany cohort 192 patients (29.8%) underwent PS and 453 (70.2%) underwent NAT/S. In all cT2cN0 patients (n=333), NAT/s remained the more frequent treatment (56.2%). Patients undergoing PS were in both cT2 cohorts older (P<0.001) and had a higher ASA classification (P<0.05). R0 resection showed no differences between NAT/S and PS in both cT2 cohorts (P>0.4).Median OS was 51.0 months in the PS group (95% CI 31.6-70.4) versus 114.0 months (95% CI 53.9-174.1) in the NAT/S group (P=0.003) of cT2cNany patients. For cT2cN0 patients NAT/S was associated with longer OS (P=0.002) and disease-free survival (DFS) (P=0.001). After propensity score matching of cT2N0 patients, survival benefit for NAT/S remained (P=0.004). Histopathology showed that 38.1% of cT2cNany and 34.2% of cT2cN0 patients were understaged. CONCLUSIONS: Due to unreliable identification of cT2N0 disease, all patients should be offered a multimodal therapeutic approach.

Radiomics in Oesogastric Cancer: Staging and Prediction of Preoperative Treatment Response: A Narrative Review and the Results of Personal Experience.

BACKGROUND: Oesophageal, gastroesophageal, and gastric malignancies are often diagnosed at locally advanced stage and multimodal therapy is recommended to increase the chances of survival. However, given the significant variation in treatment response, there is a clear imperative to refine patient stratification. The aim of this narrative review was to explore the existing evidence and the potential of radiomics to improve staging and prediction of treatment response of oesogastric cancers. METHODS: The references for this review article were identified via MEDLINE (PubMed) and Scopus searches with the terms "radiomics", "texture analysis", "oesophageal cancer", "gastroesophageal junction cancer", "oesophagogastric junction cancer", "gastric cancer", "stomach cancer", "staging", and "treatment response" until May 2024. RESULTS: Radiomics proved to be effective in improving disease staging and prediction of treatment response for both oesophageal and gastric cancer with all imaging modalities (TC, MRI, and 18F-FDG PET/CT). The literature data on the application of radiomics to gastroesophageal junction cancer are very scarce. Radiomics models perform better when integrating different imaging modalities compared to a single radiology method and when combining clinical to radiomics features compared to only a radiomics signature. CONCLUSIONS: Radiomics shows potential in noninvasive staging and predicting response to preoperative therapy among patients with locally advanced oesogastric cancer. As a future perspective, the incorporation of molecular subgroup analysis to clinical and radiomic features may even increase the effectiveness of these predictive and prognostic models.

Reconstruction Techniques and Associated Morbidity in Minimally Invasive Gastrectomy for Cancer - Insights from the GastroBenchmark and GASTRODATA databases.

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND: Various anastomotic and reconstruction techniques are used for minimally invasive total (miTG) and distal gastrectomy (miDG). Their effects on postoperative morbidity have not been extensively studied. METHODS: MiTG and miDG patients were selected from 9356 oncological gastrectomies performed 2017-2021 in 44 centers. Endpoints included anastomotic leakage (AL) rate and postoperative morbidity tested by multivariable analysis. RESULTS: Three major anastomotic techniques (circular stapled (CS); linear stapled (LS); hand sewn (HS)), and three major bowel reconstruction types (Roux (RX); Billroth I (BI); Billroth II (BII)) were identified in miTG (n=878) and miDG (n=3334). Postoperative complications including AL (5.2% vs. 1.1%), overall (28.7% vs. 16.3%) and major morbidity (15.7% vs. 8.2%), as well as 90-day mortality (1.6% vs. 0.5%) were higher after miTG compared with miDG. After miTG, AL rate was higher after CS (4.3%) and HS (7.9%) compared with LS (3.4%). Similarly, major complications (LS: 9.7%, CS: 16.2%, HS: 12.7%) were lowest after LS. Multivariate analysis confirmed anastomotic technique as predictive factor for AL, overall and major complications. In miDG, AL rate (BI: 1.4%, BII 0.8%, RX 1.2%), overall (BI: 14.5%, BII: 15.0%, RX: 18.7%,) and major morbidity (BI: 7.9%, BII: 9.1%, RX: 7.2%), and mortality (BI: 0%, BII: 0.1%, RY: 1.1%%) were not affected by bowel reconstruction. CONCLUSION: In oncologically suitable situations, miDG should be preferred to miTG, as postoperative morbidity is significantly lower. LS should be a preferred anastomotic technique for miTG in Western Centers. Conversely, bowel reconstruction in DG may be chosen according to surgeon's preference.

Information Needs in Patients with Potentially Curable Gastroesophageal Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Gastroesophageal cancer patients' information needs remain understudied, despite their complex treatment trajectories. METHODS: This study examined the (i) information needs of patients with or without postoperative complications, (ii) information needs of male and female patients, and (iii) the association between information needs and health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) following gastroesophageal cancer surgery. Patients completed the EORTC-QLQ-INFO25, QLQ-C30, and QLQ-OG25 questionnaires before and after curative surgery. Five information needs domains were investigated: information about the disease, about treatments, about medical tests, about things patients can do to help themselves, and overall helpfulness. Additionally, HR-QoL domains global health status, eating restrictions, and anxiety were explored. RESULTS: A total of 132 patients completed the questionnaires at baseline, 216 patients at 6-12 months, 184 patients at 18-24 months, and 163 patients at 3-5 years post-operation. There were no significant differences in information needs between patients with or without complications or between male and female patients. Patients with a higher global health status found the information more helpful at 6-12 months (p < 0.001), 18-24 months (p < 0.001), and 3-5 years (p < 0.001) postoperatively, as did patients who experienced more anxiety at 18-24 months (p = 0.009) and 3-5 years (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Gastroesophageal cancer patients, regardless of sex or postoperative complications, have consistent information needs, yet those with higher global health status and elevated anxiety levels find the information particularly helpful, emphasizing the importance of tailored communication strategies.

Surgeon Preference and Clinical Outcome of 3D Vision Compared to 2D Vision in Laparoscopic Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

Objective: To assess the added value of 3-dimensional (3D) vision, including high definition (HD) technology, in laparoscopic surgery in terms of surgeon preference and clinical outcome. Background: The use of 3D vision in laparoscopic surgery has been suggested to improve surgical performance. However, the added value of 3D vision remains unclear as a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing 3D vision including HD technology in laparoscopic surgery is currently lacking. Methods: A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines with a literature search up to May 2023 using PubMed and Embase (PROSPERO, CRD42021290426). We included RCTs comparing 3D versus 2-dimensional (2D) vision in laparoscopic surgery. The primary outcome was operative time. Meta-analyses were performed using the random effects model to estimate the pooled effect size expressed in standard mean difference (SMD) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The level of evidence and quality was assessed according to the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Results: Overall, 25 RCTs with 3003 patients were included. Operative time was reduced by 3D vision (-8.0%; SMD, -0.22; 95% CI, -0.37 to -0.06; P = 0.007; n = 3003; 24 studies; I 2 = 75%) compared to 2D vision. This benefit was mostly seen in bariatric surgery (-16.3%; 95% CI, -1.28 to -0.21; P = 0.006; 2 studies; n = 58; I 2 = 0%) and general surgery (-6.7%; 95% CI, -0.34 to -0.01; P = 0.036; 9 studies; n = 1056; I 2 = 41%). Blood loss was nonsignificantly reduced by 3D vision (SMD, -0.33; 95% CI, -0.68 to 0.017; P = 0.060; n = 1830; I 2 = 92%). No differences in the rates of morbidity (14.9% vs 13.5%, P = 0.644), mortality (0% vs 0%), conversion (0.8% vs 0.9%, P = 0.898), and hospital stay (9.6 vs 10.5 days, P = 0.078) were found between 3D and 2D vision. In 15 RCTs that reported on surgeon preference, 13 (87%) reported that the majority of surgeons favored 3D vision. Conclusions: Across 25 RCTs, this systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated shorter operative time with 3D vision in laparoscopic surgery, without differences in other outcomes. The majority of surgeons participating in the RCTs reported in favor of 3D vision.

Outcomes after gastrectomy according to the Gastrectomy Complications Consensus Group (GCCG) in the Dutch Upper GI Cancer Audit (DUCA).

BACKGROUND: In 2019, the Gastrectomy Complications Consensus Group (GCCG) published a standardized set of complications aiming toward uniform reporting of post-gastrectomy complications. This study aimed to report outcomes after gastrectomy in the Netherlands according to GCCG definitions and compare them to previously reported national results and the European database reported by the GCCG. METHODS: This nationwide, population-based cohort study included all patients undergoing gastrectomy for gastric cancer registered in the DUCA in 2020-2021. Postoperative morbidity and 30-day/in-hospital mortality were analyzed according to the GCCG definitions. For all patients, baseline characteristics and outcomes were compared with the GCCG cohort consisting of 27 European expert centers (GASTRODATA; 2017-2018). RESULTS: In 2020-2021, 782 patients underwent gastrectomy in the Netherlands. Variation was seen in baseline characteristics between the Dutch and the GCCG cohort (N = 1349), most notably in minimally invasive surgery (80.6% vs 19.6%, p < 0.001). In the Netherlands, 223 (28.5%) patients developed a total of 407 complications, the most frequent being non-surgical infections (28.5%) and anastomotic leakage (13.4%). The overall complication and 30-day mortality rates were similar between the Dutch and GCCG cohort (28.5% vs 29.8%, p = 0.563; 3.7% vs 3.6%, p = 0.953). Higher surgical and endoscopic/radiologic reintervention rates were observed in the Netherlands compared to the GCCG cohort (10.7% vs 7.8%, p = 0.025; 10.9% vs 2.9%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Reporting outcomes according to the standardized GCCG definitions allows for international benchmarking. Postoperative outcomes were comparable between Dutch and GCCG cohorts, but both exceed the international benchmark for expert gastrectomy care, highlighting targets for national and international quality improvement.

The pluripotency factor NANOG contributes to mesenchymal plasticity and is predictive for outcome in esophageal adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Despite the advent of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT), overall survival rates of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) remain low. A readily induced mesenchymal transition of EAC cells contributes to resistance to CRT. METHODS: In this study, we aimed to chart the heterogeneity in cell state transition after CRT and to identify its underpinnings. A panel of 12 esophageal cultures were treated with CRT and ranked by their relative epithelial-mesenchymal plasticity. RNA-sequencing was performed on 100 pre-treatment biopsies. After RNA-sequencing, Ridge regression analysis was applied to correlate gene expression to ranked plasticity, and models were developed to predict mesenchymal transitions in patients. Plasticity score predictions of the three highest significant predictive models were projected on the pre-treatment biopsies and related to clinical outcome data. Motif enrichment analysis of the genes associated with all three models was performed. RESULTS: This study reveals NANOG as the key associated transcription factor predicting mesenchymal plasticity in EAC. Expression of NANOG in pre-treatment biopsies is highly associated with poor response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation, the occurrence of recurrences, and median overall survival difference in EAC patients (>48 months). Perturbation of NANOG reduces plasticity and resensitizes cell lines, organoid cultures, and patient-derived in vivo grafts. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, NANOG is a key transcription factor in mesenchymal plasticity in EAC and a promising predictive marker for outcome.

Esophageal cancer is the sixth most common cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Although chemotherapy combined with radiotherapy (chemoradiotherapy) followed by surgery has improved survival, tumor recurrence and metastatic disease (that has spread to other parts of the body) are often observed after several months. In this study, we assessed the effect of chemoradiotherapy on esophageal cells in the lab to predict the effect in patients with esophageal cancer. To investigate this, genes were assessed from 12 different cell lines and 100 patient tissues. We revealed that levels of one of the genes, NANOG, associates with poor response in patients. NANOG could be a promising marker to predict outcome in patients with esophageal cancer. This knowledge might help clinicians to treat patients with esophageal cancer appropriately, or may lead to new or optimized treatments.

European clinical practice guidelines for the definition, diagnosis, and treatment of oligometastatic esophagogastric cancer (OMEC-4)

The OligoMetastatic Esophagogastric Cancer (OMEC) project aims to provide clinical practice guidelines for the definition, diagnosis, and treatment of esophagogastric oligometastatic disease (OMD). Guidelines were developed according to AGREE II and GRADE principles. Guidelines were based on a systematic review (OMEC-1), clinical case discussions (OMEC-2), and a Delphi consensus study (OMEC-3) by 49 European expert centers for esophagogastric cancer. OMEC identified patients for whom the term OMD is considered or could be considered. Disease-free interval (DFI) was defined as the time between primary tumor treatment and detection of OMD. Moderate to high quality of evidence was found (i.e. 1 randomized and 4 non-randomized phase II trials) resulting in moderate recommendations. OMD is considered in esophagogastric cancer patients with 1 organ with ≤ 3 metastases or 1 involved extra-regional lymph node station. In addition, OMD continues to be considered in patients with OMD without progression in number of metastases after systemic therapy. 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging is recommended for baseline staging and for restaging after systemic therapy when local treatment is considered. For patients with synchronous OMD or metachronous OMD and a DFI ≤ 2 years, recommended treatment consists of systemic therapy followed by restaging to assess suitability for local treatment. For patients with metachronous OMD and DFI > 2 years, upfront local treatment is additionally recommended. These multidisciplinary European clinical practice guidelines for the uniform definition, diagnosis and treatment of esophagogastric OMD can be used to standardize inclusion criteria in future clinical trials and to reduce variation in treatment.

Recurrence and Survival After Minimally Invasive and Open Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Post Hoc Analysis of the Ensure Study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of operative approach [open (OE), hybrid minimally invasive (HMIE), and total minimally invasive (TMIE) esophagectomy] on operative and oncologic outcomes for patients treated with curative intent for esophageal and junctional cancer. BACKGROUND: The optimum oncologic surgical approach to esophageal and junctional cancer is unclear. METHODS: This secondary analysis of the European multicenter ENSURE study includes patients undergoing curative-intent esophagectomy for cancer between 2009 and 2015 across 20 high-volume centers. Primary endpoints were disease-free survival (DFS) and the incidence and location of disease recurrence. Secondary endpoints included among others R0 resection rate, lymph node yield, and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: In total, 3199 patients were included. Of these, 55% underwent OE, 17% HMIE, and 29% TMIE. DFS was independently increased post-TMIE [hazard ratio (HR): 0.86 (95% CI: 0.76-0.98), P = 0.022] compared with OE. Multivariable regression demonstrated no difference in absolute locoregional recurrence risk according to the operative approach [HMIE vs OE, odds ratio (OR): 0.79, P = 0.257; TMIE vs OE, OR: 0.84, P = 0.243]. The probability of systemic recurrence was independently increased post-HMIE (OR: 2.07, P = 0.031), but not TMIE (OR: 0.86, P = 0.508). R0 resection rates ( P = 0.005) and nodal yield ( P < 0.001) were independently increased after TMIE, but not HMIE ( P = 0.424; P = 0.512) compared with OE. OS was independently improved following both HMIE (HR: 0.79, P = 0.009) and TMIE (HR: 0.82, P = 0.003) as compared with OE. CONCLUSION: In this European multicenter study, TMIE was associated with improved surgical quality and DFS, whereas both TMIE and HMIE were associated with improved OS as compared with OE for esophageal cancer.

Western European Variation in the Organization of Esophageal Cancer Surgical Care.

Reasons for structural and outcome differences in esophageal cancer surgery in Western Europe remain unclear. This questionnaire study aimed to identify differences in the organization of esophageal cancer surgical care in Western Europe. A cross-sectional international questionnaire study was conducted among upper gastrointestinal (GI) surgeons from Western Europe. One surgeon per country was selected based on scientific output and active membership in the European Society for Diseases of the Esophagus or (inter)national upper GI committee. The questionnaire consisted of 51 structured questions on the structural organization of esophageal cancer surgery, surgical training, and clinical audit processes. Between October 2021 and October 2022, 16 surgeons from 16 European countries participated in this study. In 5 countries (31%), a volume threshold was present ranging from 10 to 26 annual esophagectomies, in 7 (44%) care was centralized in designated centers, and in 4 (25%) no centralizing regulations were present. The number of centers performing esophageal cancer surgery per country differed from 4 to 400, representing 0.5-4.9 centers per million inhabitants. In 4 countries (25%), esophageal cancer surgery was part of general surgical training and 8 (50%) reported the availability of upper GI surgery fellowships. A national audit for upper GI surgery was present in 8 (50%) countries. If available, all countries use the audit to monitor the quality of care. Substantial differences exist in the organization and centralization of esophageal cancer surgical care in Western Europe. The exchange of experience in the organizational aspects of care could further improve the results of esophageal cancer surgical care in Europe.

European clinical practice guidelines for the definition, diagnosis, and treatment of oligometastatic esophagogastric cancer (OMEC-4).

INTRODUCTION: The OligoMetastatic Esophagogastric Cancer (OMEC) project aims to provide clinical practice guidelines for the definition, diagnosis, and treatment of esophagogastric oligometastatic disease (OMD). METHODS: Guidelines were developed according to AGREE II and GRADE principles. Guidelines were based on a systematic review (OMEC-1), clinical case discussions (OMEC-2), and a Delphi consensus study (OMEC-3) by 49 European expert centers for esophagogastric cancer. OMEC identified patients for whom the term OMD is considered or could be considered. Disease-free interval (DFI) was defined as the time between primary tumor treatment and detection of OMD. RESULTS: Moderate to high quality of evidence was found (i.e. 1 randomized and 4 non-randomized phase II trials) resulting in moderate recommendations. OMD is considered in esophagogastric cancer patients with 1 organ with ≤ 3 metastases or 1 involved extra-regional lymph node station. In addition, OMD continues to be considered in patients with OMD without progression in number of metastases after systemic therapy. 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging is recommended for baseline staging and for restaging after systemic therapy when local treatment is considered. For patients with synchronous OMD or metachronous OMD and a DFI ≤ 2 years, recommended treatment consists of systemic therapy followed by restaging to assess suitability for local treatment. For patients with metachronous OMD and DFI > 2 years, upfront local treatment is additionally recommended. DISCUSSION: These multidisciplinary European clinical practice guidelines for the uniform definition, diagnosis and treatment of esophagogastric OMD can be used to standardize inclusion criteria in future clinical trials and to reduce variation in treatment.

Phenotypic immune characterization of gastric and esophageal adenocarcinomas reveals profound immune suppression in esophageal tumor locations.

Background: Tumors in the distal esophagus (EAC), gastro-esophageal junction including cardia (GEJAC), and stomach (GAC) develop in close proximity and show strong similarities on a molecular and cellular level. However, recent clinical data showed that the effectiveness of chemo-immunotherapy is limited to a subset of GEAC patients and that EACs and GEJACs generally benefit less from checkpoint inhibition compared to GACs. As the composition of the tumor immune microenvironment drives response to (immuno)therapy we here performed a detailed immune analysis of a large series of GEACs to facilitate the development of a more individualized immunomodulatory strategy. Methods: Extensive immunophenotyping was performed by 14-color flow cytometry in a prospective study to detail the immune composition of untreated gastro-esophageal cancers (n=104) using fresh tumor biopsies of 35 EACs, 38 GEJACs and 31 GACs. The immune cell composition of GEACs was characterized and correlated with clinicopathologic features such as tumor location, MSI and HER2 status. The spatial immune architecture of a subset of tumors (n=30) was evaluated using multiplex immunohistochemistry (mIHC) which allowed us to determine the tumor infiltration status of CD3+, CD8+, FoxP3+, CD163+ and Ki67+ cells. Results: Immunophenotyping revealed that the tumor immune microenvironment of GEACs is heterogeneous and that immune suppressive cell populations such as monocytic myeloid-derived suppressor cells (mMDSC) are more abundant in EACs compared to GACs (p<0.001). In contrast, GACs indicated a proinflammatory microenvironment with elevated frequencies of proliferating (Ki67+) CD4 Th cells (p<0.001), Ki67+ CD8 T cells (p=0.002), and CD8 effector memory-T cells (p=0.024). Differences between EACs and GACs were confirmed by mIHC analyses showing lower densities of tumor- and stroma-infiltrating Ki67+ CD8 T cells in EAC compared to GAC (both p=0.021). Discussions: This comprehensive immune phenotype study of a large series of untreated GEACs, identified that tumors with an esophageal tumor location have more immune suppressive features compared to tumors in the gastro-esophageal junction or stomach which might explain the location-specific responses to checkpoint inhibitors in this disease. These findings provide an important rationale for stratification according to tumor location in clinical studies and the development of location-dependent immunomodulatory treatment approaches.

International consensus on the management of metastatic gastric cancer: step by step in the foggy landscape : Bertinoro Workshop, November 2022.

BACKGROUND: Many gastric cancer patients in Western countries are diagnosed as metastatic with a median overall survival of less than twelve months using standard chemotherapy. Innovative treatments, like targeted therapy or immunotherapy, have recently proved to ameliorate prognosis, but a general agreement on managing oligometastatic disease has yet to be achieved. An international multi-disciplinary workshop was held in Bertinoro, Italy, in November 2022 to verify whether achieving a consensus on at least some topics was possible. METHODS: A two-round Delphi process was carried out, where participants were asked to answer 32 multiple-choice questions about CT, laparoscopic staging and biomarkers, systemic treatment for different localization, role and indication of palliative care. Consensus was established with at least a 67% agreement. RESULTS: The assembly agreed to define oligometastases as a "dynamic" disease which either regresses or remains stable in response to systemic treatment. In addition, the definition of oligometastases was restricted to the following sites: para-aortic nodal stations, liver, lung, and peritoneum, excluding bones. In detail, the following conditions should be considered as oligometastases: involvement of para-aortic stations, in particular 16a2 or 16b1; up to three technically resectable liver metastases; three unilateral or two bilateral lung metastases; peritoneal carcinomatosis with PCI ≤ 6. No consensus was achieved on how to classify positive cytology, which was considered as oligometastatic by 55% of participants only if converted to negative after chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: As assessed at the time of diagnosis, surgical treatment of oligometastases should aim at R0 curativity on the entire disease volume, including both the primary tumor and its metastases. Conversion surgery was defined as surgery on the residual volume of disease, which was initially not resectable for technical and/or oncological reasons but nevertheless responded to first-line treatment.

Sex-related differences in oncologic outcomes, operative complications and health-related quality of life after curative-intent oesophageal cancer treatment: multicentre retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: Oesophageal cancer, in particular adenocarcinoma, has a strong male predominance. However, the impact of patient sex on operative and oncologic outcomes and recovery of health-related quality of life is poorly documented, and was the focus of this large multicentre cohort study. METHODS: All consecutive patients who underwent oncological oesophagectomy from 2009 to 2015 in the 20 European iNvestigation of SUrveillance after Resection for Esophageal cancer study group centres were assessed. Clinicopathologic variables, therapeutic approach, postoperative complications, survival and health-related quality of life data were compared between male and female patients. Multivariable analyses adjusted for age, sex, tumour histology, treatment protocol and major complications. Specific subgroup analyses comparing adenocarcinoma versus squamous cell cancer for all key outcomes were performed. RESULTS: Overall, 3974 patients were analysed, 3083 (77.6%) male and 891 (22.4%) female; adenocarcinoma was predominant in both groups, while squamous cell cancer was observed more commonly in female patients (39.8% versus 15.1%, P < 0.001). Multivariable analysis demonstrated improved outcomes in female patients for overall survival (HRmales 1.24, 95% c.i. 1.07 to 1.44) and disease-free survival (HRmales 1.22, 95% c.i. 1.05 to 1.43), which was caused by the adenocarcinoma subgroup, whereas this difference was not confirmed in squamous cell cancer. Male patients presented higher health-related quality of life functional scores but also a higher risk of financial problems, while female patients had lower overall summary scores and more persistent gastrointestinal symptoms. CONCLUSION: This study reveals uniquely that female sex is associated with more favourable long-term survival after curative treatment for oesophageal cancer, especially adenocarcinoma, although long-term overall and gastrointestinal health-related quality of life are poorer in women.

Impact of 18FFDG-PET/CT and Laparoscopy in Staging of Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Cost Analysis in the Prospective Multicenter PLASTIC-Study.

BACKGROUND: Unnecessary D2-gastrectomy and associated costs can be prevented after detecting non-curable gastric cancer, but impact of staging on treatment costs is unclear. This study determined the cost impact of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18FFDG-PET/CT) and staging laparoscopy (SL) in gastric cancer staging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this cost analysis, four staging strategies were modeled in a decision tree: (1) 18FFDG-PET/CT first, then SL, (2) SL only, (3) 18FFDG-PET/CT only, and (4) neither SL nor 18FFDG-PET/CT. Costs were assessed on the basis of the prospective PLASTIC-study, which evaluated adding 18FFDG-PET/CT and SL to staging advanced gastric cancer (cT3-4 and/or cN+) in 18 Dutch hospitals. The Dutch Healthcare Authority provided 18FFDG-PET/CT unit costs. SL unit costs were calculated bottom-up. Gastrectomy-associated costs were collected with hospital claim data until 30 days postoperatively. Uncertainty was assessed in a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (1000 iterations). RESULTS: 18FFDG-PET/CT costs were €1104 including biopsy/cytology. Bottom-up calculations totaled €1537 per SL. D2-gastrectomy costs were €19,308. Total costs per patient were €18,137 for strategy 1, €17,079 for strategy 2, and €19,805 for strategy 3. If all patients undergo gastrectomy, total costs were €18,959 per patient (strategy 4). Performing SL only reduced costs by €1880 per patient. Adding 18FFDG-PET/CT to SL increased costs by €1058 per patient; IQR €870-1253 in the sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: For advanced gastric cancer, performing SL resulted in substantial cost savings by reducing unnecessary gastrectomies. In contrast, routine 18FFDG-PET/CT increased costs without substantially reducing unnecessary gastrectomies, and is not recommended due to limited impact with major costs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03208621. This trial was registered prospectively on 30-06-2017.

Prognostic value of Mandard score and nodal status for recurrence patterns and survival after multimodal treatment of oesophageal adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the association of pathological tumour response (tumour regression grade, TRG) and a novel scoring system, combining both TRG and nodal status (TRG-ypN score; TRG1-ypN0, TRG>1-ypN0, TRG1-ypN+ and TRG>1-ypN+), with recurrence patterns and survival after multimodal treatment of oesophageal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: This Dutch nationwide cohort study included patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by oesophagectomy for distal oesophageal or gastro-oesophageal junctional adenocarcinoma between 2007 and 2016. The primary endpoint was the association of Mandard score and TRG-ypN score with recurrence patterns (rate, location, and time to recurrence). The secondary endpoint was overall survival. RESULTS: Among 2746 inclusions, recurrence rates increased with higher Mandard scores (TRG1 30.6%, TRG2 44.9%, TRG3 52.9%, TRG4 61.4%, TRG5 58.2%; P < 0.001). Among patients with recurrent disease, the distribution (locoregional versus distant) was the same for the different TRG groups. Patients with TRG1 developed more brain recurrences (17.7 versus 9.8%; P = 0.001) and had a longer mean overall survival (44 versus 35 months; P < 0.001) than those with TRG>1. The TRG>1-ypN+ group had the highest recurrence rate (64.9%) and worst overall survival (mean 27 months). Compared with the TRG>1-ypN0 group, patients with TRG1-ypN+ had a higher risk of recurrence (51.9 versus 39.6%; P < 0.001) and worse mean overall survival (33 versus 41 months; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Improved tumour response to neoadjuvant therapy was associated with lower recurrence rates and higher overall survival rates. Among patients with recurrent disease, TRG1 was associated with a higher incidence of brain recurrence than TRG>1. Residual nodal disease influenced prognosis more negatively than residual disease at the primary tumour site.

History and evidence for state of the art of lymphadenectomy in esophageal cancer surgery.

The current curative multimodal treatment of advanced esophageal cancers consists of neoadjuvant or perioperative chemo(radio)therapy followed by a radical surgical resection of the primary tumor and a 2- or 3-field lymphadenectomy. One of the most important predictors of long-term survival of esophageal cancer patients is lymph node involvement. The distribution pattern of lymph node metastases in esophageal cancer is unpredictable and depends on the primary tumor location, histology, T-stage and application of neoadjuvant or perioperative treatment. The optimal extent of the lymphadenectomy remains controversial; there is no global consensus on this topic yet. Some surgeons advocate an aggressive and extended lymph node dissection to remove occult metastatic disease, to optimize oncological outcomes. Others promote a more restricted lymphadenectomy, since the benefit of an extended lymphadenectomy, especially after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, has not been clearly demonstrated, and morbidity may be reduced. In this review, we describe the development of lymphadenectomy, followed by a summary of current evidence for lymphadenectomy in esophageal cancer treatment.